I find it interesting that by MBTI standards I's and E's are almost equal. I've heard statistics elsewhere that Introverts/Extraverts are about 30/70, but I'm assuming they're using a different standard.

I find it interesting that by MBTI standards I's and E's are almost equal. I've heard statistics elsewhere that Introverts/Extraverts are about 30/70, but I'm assuming they're using a different standard.

Introversion/extraversion lies in a continuum, and the division is where the test maker puts it.

Correlating I.Q. with type makes little sense to me as it is quite possible the test was created by an Nx for purposes of research, categorization, self-reflection, etc. I'd expect to perform poorly (and feel bad for doing so) on an ST/J created test (no, I put Sx and fixed it because I could imagine the little chuckles).

Intelligence in general has so many forms and variety. Some people have such tactual intelligence (dance, mechanics, etc.) that I could simply watch them in awe of their technique and the fluidity with which they do what they do.

The more I read about related subjects, the more I suspect that IQ doesn't *have* to decrease with age. It may do in the Western world, in which over the years the majority of people are accumulating a great variety of neurotoxins in their bodies that they never get rid of, but I strongly suspect that just as 'senile dementia' and other new neurological conditions are not found in certain cultures or in individuals who minimise their toxicity levels, IQ could potentially remain unravaged too. I'm also reminded of the case study of a young man whose depression was treated with high quality EPA omega 3 supplements, and whose brain was actually found to grow from its unusually small size within the first nine months - a feat previously assumed impossible in adults.

I agree though, that this is little to do with type and that even non-toxic people's N score would probably tend to go down, as we collect more memories to reflect on in place of original, fantasy-oriented daydreams and have more facts to use instead of speculation. I'm not sure that our preference as defined by relative enjoyment of processes change, but frequency of use probably does.

I can't post the study due to copyright restrictions, but I think this falls under fair use (And I hope this works )

Hey, not bad!

Note that CAPT has other studies that don't agree entirely with this, blah blah. There isn't a lot of research done with MBTI + IQ in the open field... so... YMMV.

For your specific questions;

Half of all people have IQ's in the top 50%, and half of these are N's, and half are S's. This is also true of the bottom half, except 3/4 of the S's in the lower half (so 3/8 of all S's total) are in the lowest 25%, and only 1/4 of N's in the lowest half are in the lowest 25% (so 1/8 of all N's total).

That would be roughly correct, although it wouldn't be 50/50 at IQ 100 (probably about 60/40 S/N). As above, about 85% of 89 IQ and lower are Ss, but it's an even split above 110.

If you were to take a sample of all the people in the top 50% for IQ, half would be N's and half S's. So 1/4 of the entire population in the top half are N's, and only 30% of the pop. are N's, then that would mean 5/6 of all N's are in the top half, and only 1/6 of all N's are in the lower half.

Top 25% in this case, half are Ns and Ss. Essentially, if this was normalised correctly, 12.5% of the population would be N and IQ>110... and 12.5% of the population would be S and IQ>110.

The sample is somewhat unevenly spread among IQ and N/S, so it's better to look at each as it's own set rather than relate it to the general population.

1) Cite your sources.
2) Was it a double-blind study? Prove it with a link.
3) Were the researchers competent?
4) What was the margin of error?
5) How many people from each type were polled?
6) Were they chosen at random?

1) Cite your sources.
2) Was it a double-blind study? Prove it with a link.
3) Were the researchers competent?
4) What was the margin of error?
5) How many people from each type were polled?
6) Were they chosen at random?

So what are the coresponding functions with intelligence/academia? Was someone earlier saying that people with a J tendancy often do very well in school? If that is true, it really wouldn't suprise me. School seems to have a judging thing going on as a whole -organised and structured, and very much NOT open ended and flexible.

This interests me.

The high school I went to required all of it's students to do a test prior to the first year in order to award a number of scholarships. There were about 200 students in our first year of high school, and likely more that had taken the test. But anyway, there were about 6 or 7 scholarships awarded, and both me and my INTP friend recieved one.

Now, I can't remember the test well enough to determine exactly what it was testing (I.Q. or otherwise), but regardless, we were both considered in the top 2 or 3 percent 'intelligence'-wise.

However, it's been interesting to see how our grades have been, right up until now (2nd/3rd year university level). My friend's grades have generally been consistantly high, but not usually enough to recieve any end-of-year academic awards. She's still achieving fairly formidable results. Mine, on the other hand, have fluctuated considerably. At the moment I'm hovering around average - I pass easily enough, but anyone looking at my grades would certainly not believe me to be as 'intelligent' as my I.Q. perhaps would indicate. (I've had tests that tell me I'm around 133. *shrug*)

So I would say that, like someone mentioned earlier in this thread, although type might have an impact on I.Q., the way different types utilise that I.Q. also probably has quite an impact on something like grades, which one would naturally assume would correllate with I.Q.